Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Time to ban weaponized uranium

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
TexasLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 12:22 AM
Original message
Time to ban weaponized uranium
Forthofer: Time to ban weaponized uranium

By Ron Forthofer
Sunday, October 14, 2007

'There is no safe level of exposure and there is no dose of (ionizing)
radiation so low that the risk of a malignancy is zero."

"The Veterans Administration seems always on the defensive to make sure
the victims are not compensated."

These quotes by Dr. Karl Z. Morgan, one of the founders of the field of health physics who also served as radiation safety director at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory from 1944 to 1971, provide a context for a discussion of depleted uranium — DU.

DU, perhaps a deliberately innocuous name for a low-level radioactive waste product from uranium enrichment, is an extremely dense hard metal that is chemically toxic. Probably because it is so dense and burns upon impact and is also essentially available free of charge as a waste product, the U.S. military chose to use DU in armor for tanks and in armor-piercing shells know as DU penetrators. These penetrators are also radiologically hazardous since, upon burning, they create tiny aerosolized glass particles that can be inhaled or ingested. The U.S. military's use of DU weapons in its attacks on Iraq, in the Balkans and possibly in Afghanistan has caused controversy because of DU's likely adverse health and environmental effects.

Those most likely to be affected are soldiers and civilians (especially children and newborns) who live in the regions where DU weapons are used. As usual, the U.S. has not shown much concern about the 'other', but it has paid lip service regarding the health of its forces and returning veterans. However, in terms of examining the effects of depleted uranium on veterans, a key problem is that the Pentagon and the VA haven't conducted the necessary studies nor have they used appropriate procedures in the limited testing that has been done.

"The military's policy is don't look, don't find," said Dan Fahey, a Navy veteran in the Persian Gulf and DU activist. Fahey added: "If they don't do proper studies of veterans, they can say there is no evidence of adverse health effects." It is shocking that the U.S. treats its soldiers in this fashion.

<snip>

http://dailycamera.com/news/2007/oct/14/time-to-ban-weaponized-uranium/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ruiner4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. the time to ban that evil weapon was long ago..
thank you for posting this...


K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. It should never have been used in the first place maybe as a shield in armour but even then it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Indenturedebtor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 03:43 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Hrmm I'm reminded of a quote from not so long ago
"Sometimes money trumps peace"
- The worst President ever

If that's the case then I suppose that all bets are off. If you could make a nickel from skinning babies I'm sure that it would be common practice for ultra capitalists (read facist).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. Just another war crime our leaders can be charged with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alofarabia Donating Member (65 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 05:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Having worked on the DU tank ammo program...
I can tell you that it's been around since the mid-90s, so I don't think we want to go there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sce56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. DU munitions were first used in the Gulf War of 1991. But they had been in devlopment for some time
Prior to that first use.
See http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/du-history.htm

One of the Army's first uses of DU was as a ballistic weight in the spotting round for the Davy Crockett missile warhead. Additionally, in the early 1960s, the Army tested a four-alloy "UQuad" containing DU in experimental tests on the 105mm and 120mm Delta Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabots (APFSDS). Tungsten continued to be favored over DU, however, for two main reasons: 1) DU was still developmental, and inconsistencies with the alloys in the manufacturing process were a persistent problem; and 2) penetration tests against older Soviet tanks and similar targets failed to show the clear penetration superiority of the DU round.

In the mid-1970s, as it became clear that the latest-generation armors might prove impervious to tungsten carbide penetrators, the Army's focus on improved tungsten alloys began to shift. At the same time, parallel Air Force and Navy tests using smaller-caliber (20-, 25-, and 30mm) ammunition had demonstrated quite convincingly the clear penetration superiority of DU rounds.

In 1973, the Army evaluated alternatives for improving the lethality of its 105mm M68 tank gun. This effort grew into the XM774 Cartridge Program which, after an extensive developmental testing and evaluation program, selected depleted uranium alloyed with ¾ percent by weight titanium (U-3/4Ti). The selection of U-3/4Ti derived in part from improved designs and alloys that allowed the DU core to withstand high acceleration without breaking up. In the 1960s, tungsten alloys used in the XM578 projectile had to be encased in a steel jacket to withstand the extreme firing velocities of the 152mm gun, reducing the penetrating effectiveness of the tungsten cartridge. The new U-3/4Ti alloy overcame these early limitations for large caliber munitions.

Development of U-3/4Ti ushered in a new generation of penetrators for the Army. Since the selection of DU for the XM774 cartridge, all major developments in tank ammunition have selected DU, including the 105mm M833 series and the 120mm M829 series (the latter being the primary anti-armor round used in the Gulf War). This pattern continues today, with the latest generation of the 105mm M900 series and the 25mm M919 for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

In the early 1970s, the Air Force developed the GAU-8/A air to surface gun system for the A-10 close air support aircraft. This unique aircraft, designed to counter the massive Soviet/Warsaw Pact armored formations spearheading an attack into NATO's Central Region, was literally designed and built around the GAU-8. This large, heavy, eight-barreled 30-mm cannon was designed to blast through the top armor of even the heaviest enemy tanks. To further exploit the new cannon's tremendous striking power, the Air Force opted to use the depleted uranium U-3/4Ti, a 30mm API round. A comprehensive Environmental Assessment of the GAU-8 ammunition was released on January 18, 1976. The report stated that the proposed action was expected to have no significant environmental impact and that the "biomedical and toxicological hazards of the use of depleted uranium (DU) in this program are practically negligible." The A-10 aircraft was deployed to United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) in 1978.

The Navy's Phalanx Close-In Weapon System, or CIWS was designed for terminal (last-ditch) defense against sea-skimming missiles. The Navy evaluated a wide range of materials before deciding on DU alloyed with 2 percent molybdenum (DU-2Mo). Phalanx production started in 1978, with orders for 23 USN and 14 Foreign Military Sales systems; however, subsequent budget cuts reduced these numbers. In 1988 the Navy opted to transition the CIWS 20mm round from DU to tungsten. The Navy made the decision based on live fire tests that showed that tungsten met the Navy's performance requirements while offering reduced probabilities of radiation exposure and environmental impact. It should be noted that the "soft" targets the CIWS was designed to defeat-anti-ship missiles at close range-are far easier to destroy than "hard" targets like tanks. Substantial stocks of DU ammunition delivered prior to that date remain in the inventory.

DU munitions were first used in the Gulf War of 1991. A total of 320 tons (290,300 kilograms) of DU projectiles were fired by the US during the Gulf War. DU friendly fire and accidental fire incidents contaminated a total of 31 US combat vehicles (16 Abrams tanks and 15 Bradley armored vehicles) in the Gulf during 1990-1991. These incidents, and the resultant cleanup and recovery operations, exposed a number of soldiers to depleted uranium. Those with the highest exposures were in, on, or near vehicles when they were struck.

US Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft fired approximately 10,000 30mm DU rounds (3.3 tons of DU) at 12 sites in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994-1995. In 1999, they fired nearly 31,000 DU rounds (10.2 tons of DU) at 85 sites in Kosovo.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
immoderate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
7. Slideshow: Introduction to Depleted Uranium
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4124449

Posted by reprehensor in July, 2005. This is :scared: No hype necessary.

--IMM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NobleCynic Donating Member (991 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-15-07 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. Indeed. Even if one has doubts about their actual danger
they're far too damaging, if nothing else, in terms of public relations. Their use is a propaganda disaster for the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Nov 13th 2024, 01:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC